How could the Iran sanctions affect global oil prices and, consequently, gasoline prices in the United States?

The financial sanctions on Iran officially kicked in last week, and energy economists aren't yet certain about their impact. But what is clear is that oil prices are falling globally from their high in April--in part thanks to increased production from Saudi Arabia. Some lawmakers are starting to talk about imposing a second round of sanctions if Iran continues to resist scrutiny of its nuclear program.

What factors should the Obama administration and other countries consider when imposing sanctions? What other actions, such as tapping into the nation's strategic oil reserves, could the administration take to blunt the possibility of high oil prices? Is the administration doing enough at home to wean the country off foreign oil?

The administration recently exempted certain countries from sanctions because they significantly reduced the volume of crude-oil imports from Iran. Do you see the exemptions as a demonstration of the sanctions' effectiveness? Or do you agree with those lawmakers who have criticized the exemption, in particular to China, as giving a "free pass" to those who help Iran's economy? If these countries can't further reduce their oil purchases from Iran in the next six months, and become subject to U.S. sanctions, how would this strategy impact foreign policy?

President Obama congratulated the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi on winning the country's first democratic presidential elections. Are you optimistic for the future of U.S. relations with Morsi in charge? How can Washington play a constructive role? With the military council effectively stripping most of the president's powers, should the U.S. adjust its aid or relationship with its security partner?

The Obama administration has accused Russia of shipping refurbished attack helicopters to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and National Journal reported this week that tiny Belarus is helping Assad improve the accuracy of its surface-to-surface missiles. That support has allowed Assad's armed forces to retain a massive military advantage over the ragtag and poorly-organized Free Syrian Army. On the diplomatic front, Russia continues to back Assad and shield him from meaningful sanctions. With the violence there continuing to escalate, is Assad likely to be forced from power in the foreseeable future? Should the U.S. provide arms and training assistance to the Free Syrian Army in the hopes that it will evolve into a force capable of taking on Assad's forces? Do you expect Washington and its allies to eventually choose to intervene militarily in Syria despite the risks of doing so?

A series of newspaper articles, including one detailing the Obama administration's use of drones and another outing Washington's cyber attack on Iran's nuclear sites, sparked an outcry on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are working to craft new laws to regulate access to and disclosure of classified information. The top Intelligence committee leaders in both the House and Senate also said they want to ensure criminal and administrative measures are taken each time sensitive information is improperly disclosed. Would new laws fix the problem? Do you think the Obama administration should launch an investigation or create a special counsel to investigate the leaks? How big of a problem does the disclosure of such highly-classified problems pose for U.S. foreign policy?

Yemeni military officers captured by al-Qaida fighters complained in a recent PBS Frontline report that they were outgunned and out-supplied by the terrorist organization. The U.S. is increasingly active across a spectrum counterterrorism operations in Yemen, and has provided its military more than $300 million worth of aid. But the U.S. provided small arms, pickup trucks, and helicopter spare parts, in addition to "non-lethal" aid. No arms have come from Washington since last year. The Senate has approved the Pentagon's request to restart $75 million in aid, but that may not be approved until the end of the year. Should the U.S. consider doing more to arm Yemen's military sooner? Is the drone and secretive counterterrorism campaign good enough?

This week's question brought to you by Amy Harder of the Energy Experts Blog. Check out their responses.

How does clean energy fit into the military's mission? And what role should the military play in fulfilling President Obama's goal of creating an economy based on cleaner-energy sources?

The U.S. military is the single-largest industrial consumer of oil in the world. The Pentagon sees the goal of reducing its oil consumption as a national-security concern. The Obama administration has continuously touted the military's use of renewable energy, especially biofuels. Some Republicans in Congress have charged that the military should not spend money on expensive alternative fuels at a time when the nation needs to cut its trillion-dollar deficit.

In what ways--if at all--should the military fund its clean-energy initiatives? What specific types of alternative-energy sources would be best suited for the military's needs? Should Congress intervene? Will the military be a catalyst for the country to dramatically shift to cleaner-energy sources?

The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday will mark up its 2013 defense authorization bill. Despite the Pentagon's request for Congress to swallow its request whole, the bill's first draft rejects many proposals DOD was counting on to meet the Budget Control Act's spending limits. Chairman Buck McKeon's bill rejects the Pentagon's request for two BRAC rounds, reinstates weapons and personnel cuts, denies shifting billions of military personnel funds into the war account and adds on an East Coast missile defense system the Pentagon did not seek. Who will win these battles? Realistically, what should the final Pentagon budget look like?

If Osama bin Laden were still alive today, he would hardly recognize the world he knew. Nor would he see the supposed "clash of civilizations" that he tried so hard to foment over two decades of violent jihad. Instead bin Laden would see Islamist radicals on the election stump in emerging governments in Egypt and Tunisia, pledging cooperation with senior U.S. officials, and even meeting with a few neocons in Washington. He would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden's confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al Qaida era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism. He would see Islamist parties that are passionately pursuing power and vested interests within their own countries (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) rather than against bin Laden's old "far enemy," the United States.

One year after bin Laden was killed, are we still involved in a war on terror? Has the death of bin laden and the rise of the Arab Spring changed anything?

All eyes were on North Korea's controversial missile launch--and subsequent failure--on Thursday. Does the launch, in defiance of international pressure, mean the Obama administration's effort to engage Pyongyang has failed? The U.S. quickly announced it would suspend food aid, and is huddling with South Korea, Japan, and other allies to consider further retaliation. What steps should be taken? How does this new crisis affect early hopes that the country's new young leader Kim Jong Un would have a warmer-- or at least more rational-- relationship with the West?

After years of stone-walling, Tehran has agreed to restart talks with the Perm-5 Plus One (permanent members of the UN Security Council the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China, plus Germany) about its nuclear program. Yet even before the talks recommence, squabbling has broken out over the venue, with Iran objecting to the preferred site of Turkey. What are the chances that meaningful progress will be made at the upcoming negotiations? Is there a face-saving deal that would allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium supposedly for peaceful purposes, but of a quantity and quality that do not presage a possible nuclear weapon? Are sanctions biting hard enough to convince Tehran to give up enrichment altogether? If these talks fail, how seriously do you take the Obama administration's warning that they could represent the last chance for diplomacy?